WLHS COUNTER APOLOGETICS INTRO • We do not define people by what they don’t believe in (deities, spirits, etc), it is not useful. • Atheism/agnosticism are not positions on politics or ethics/morals, they are not world views. • Being an atheist/agnostic doesn’t prevent one from believing in the supernatural. • Time wasted in debates arguing on definitions for atheism/agnosticism. • It is possible to believe in the supernatural yet remain secular when it comes to politics and ethics (many of the founding fathers of the US were religious, deistic yet were secular for their time because of the problems evident with religion mingling with politics). Briefly: • Secularism: the position that people are treated equally with no preference to any religious group. • Humanism: the position that ethics/morals are based on evidence and for the concern of humanity and not a singular supernatural deity. The rejection of the supernatural in favour of the natural world as revealed by the scientific method. SECULAR HUMANISM In politics: • All citizens are treated as equals regardless of their religiosity or lack thereof. • Discrimination of religious minorities common in theocracies Education: • “…but secular ideologies… millions killed, counties invaded…”- secularism only focuses on neutrality w/ respect to religion, one less layer on the BS onion. • Humanism (Hmanifesto)> superstition/supernaturalism Morality: • Ethics/morality based on evidence and can be improved based upon new evidence. Religious morality is based on divine edict, remains stagnant (referred to as “objective” and “eternal” • Religion can get good people to do things they normally would condemn (genital mutilation, killing apostates) Rationalism: • Proportioning beliefs to the evidence. • Religion does not hold a monopoly on irrational claims or beliefs though it is the largest dogma (homeopathy, reincarnation, politics). • Favouring skepticism/critical thinking over gullibility. WHY CARE? A CASE STUDY Case study 1 • America 1860-1930: Golden Age of Freethought where religions was becoming challenged more often (Colonel Ingersoll), and where bias towards the religious was not strong • Pre 1954 pledge: “I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.” • Post 1954 pledge: “I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.” Bias for monotheistic religion was established after conflict with Russia, divisive, implying the non-religious cannot be contributing citizens. During 1970s, atheists heavily stigmatised, continuing even after Sep 2001. WHY CARE? RELIGIOUS CONFLICTS • Madalyn Murray O’Hare- American atheist fought for American schools to remove state-forced prayer. Became the most hated woman in America. Both Madalyn and her children were physically harassed (bullied/beaten). • The non-religious are the most distrusted minority in America even when the questions were asked after 9/11. Other conflicts across the globe: • Polarising Israel/Palestine conflict, the formation of Pakistan from India due to religious differences, Boko Haram (kills Nigerian students because western education is seen as “evil”). Activism • Lending a voice to those who can’t speak in countries where being a secular humanist can lead you to losing your job or your life. • Religious sensitivities high because of our silence seen as consent to promote/enforce religion. WHY CARE? MISINFORMATION The religious have had the upper hand for hundreds of years to spread misinformation about us: “You can’t be moral without religion” “You don’t believe because you want to sin!” “We need religion in politics because without it society would collapse” WHY CARE? POLITICS… Our beliefs influence our actions, therefore the beliefs we hold weight in how politics is influenced. Example: “God said so: Go forth, be fruitful, multiply, and rape the planet- it's yours.” ~Ann Coulter (American conservative) What’s the justification? “And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.” Genesis 1:28 • With this kind of mentality, bad decisions can be made. INTERNET COMMUNITY On the internet, the religious cannot easily escape making spurious claims without criticism. The internet is also a place where those who have no voice outside it, can engage in debate about a topic that would otherwise be too taboo or risky to one’s life. DEBATING TACTICS USED BY APOLOGISTS • Shotgun approach: make numerous claims that need more time to be addressed than the debate would allow. • Spurious fact spammage/rhetoric: said too fast to be sourced/checked. Claims can be made at a whim and cannot be checked during a debate. • Minimal audience participation (to avoid too many questions/being challenged). • Arguing for deistic deity and jumping from deistic to theistic deity with no evidence in between. • Fixing the audience with larger numbers of believers who may cheer/boo (and often engage in hooligan-like behaviour) to intimidate guest speakers. • Speaking loudly over debate opponents who may be more polite/soft spoken COMMON ARGUMENTS • Kalam Cosmological Argument (first cause) • Ontological argument • “Objective” morality • “Secular” totalitarianism (i.e. Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot) • The numbers game • Evolution • Cosmic justice • Science in the bible/quran • Religion is eternal, science keeps changing! KALAM COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT Kalam Cosmological Argument (first cause) 1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause. 2. The universe begun to exist. 3. A god must have caused the universe to come into existence. Issues with the argument: • The word “universe” could be used to convey everything that exists (including multiverses) or a universe singular, this must be clarified first. • The origins of the universe is in the domain of science/cosmology and not theology. • Physicists find that certain particles on the quantum level do not obey the typical “laws” of causality. Some particles may appear to come into existence without cause, and even from “nothing”. • When theists claim “something from nothing”, the way the word “nothing” is used by physicists may not be the same way that we used the word in everyday parlance. For example, when a water bottles contains no water, we say there is “nothing” in it, although there is still light airwaves and air present in the bottle. ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT The Ontological argument: 1) God is by definition the greatest being conceivable. 2) God exists in the mind. 3) To exist in reality and in the mind is greater than to exist in the mind alone. 4) Therefore, God must exist in reality as well as the mind; if God did not, then God would not be the greatest being conceivable. • Problem with this argument is that it can be used to “argue into existence” any being: “Which being is more powerful, the being who can create worlds and save your sins or the being that can do that whilst simultaneously not existing? I'd say the one that doesn't exist is more powerful and therefore God doesn't exist.” – Matt Dillahunty • This argument is not seen as credible even by most theologians, yet it still often used. • Scott Clifton goes into this argument in more depth in his video: http://tinyurl.com/6fdexvg MORALITY ISSUES • Religious morality is claimed to be “objective” unchanging (Christians and Muslims) • Morality from scripture is from a deity that possesses a mind-religious morality is still subjective (subject to the mind of the deity in question). • Deity could command genocide, rape and theft, and it could be “good”. If deity can’t command this, what standard is preventing that deity from commanding it? • See Euthyphro’s dillema (and Euthypro’s dillema dillema!) Religions are flayed in the debate arena on topics of morality- why should they be allowed to escape this criticism outside the internet? MORALITY ISSUES • Reason for evil/suffering on the world due to deity allowing for comparison so that happiness can be valued or for teaching moral lessons 1. An omnipotent could create a world in which suffering/evil would not be required for happiness/good to be appreciated. 2. Some children are born and die knowing only suffering- what lesson for the child? 3. Suffering/evil existing not consistent with omnibelevolence. • Only way to address this for the theist is that the suffering really doesn’t exist. MORALITY ISSUES Other claims made by the religious about morality: • “Secularists borrow their morality from Christian world view”. Morality predated the Abrahamic religions, acts of kindness were done before the 10 commandments was officiated in stone. • “This life is a test”. An omniscient being would know the results before the test was created, therefore the test is unnecessary. • “Our Earthly justice system doesn’t always get the villains”. Fantasising about this idea being solved in an afterlife does not address the issue. MORALITY ISSUES “But without religion, countries will see a spike in crime”. • Correlation is not evident (particularly in Scandinavian countries). • The most secular (Scandinavian countries) would be plagued with societal ills and be on the verge of collapse if religion was required, yet this has not been demonstrated. Religious morality promotes the idea that people